Two of the most shocking cases involved young women who have had little media experience or exposure. One was invited to speak on climate change at a suburban library. Her brief was simple – talk about everyday things people can do to cut their carbon footprint, talk about climate books available at the library (list provided), leave time for questions, and mingle afterwards. The other woman was asked by a local newspaper to pose with her young children for a photograph to illustrate an article promoting a community tree-planting event. She was briefly quoted as saying planting trees could help mitigate climate change. Two days after the article appeared, she received emails containing threats of sexual assault and violence against her children.

As for the woman speaking at the library, her car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter? – and the words ”climate turd” written (also in excrement) across the car bonnet. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development.

Beeby is addressing the issue because of some pushback from the global-waming denial crew. In what just must have been a coincidence, the Daily Telegraph, where Tim Blair is opinion editor, had this deceitful story, arguing that because there had been a threat five years ago, there had been no recent threats. If that seems logical to you, you are probably a reporter at the Daily Telegraph. Beeby comments:

Have the threats abated? Not according to the majority of scientists we contacted. Two weeks ago, when ANU economist Professor Ross Garnaut published the final report in his climate update, many scientists said their computers and mobile phones were flooded with spam emails and texts, many abusive or defamatory.

And that’s how we came across the story. There was no ”exquisitely timed” release of information as claimed by one climate sceptic’s blog. There was no conspiracy, rather it was just a chance catch-up call that yielded an unexpected result. We rang a contact (an ecologist) on his landline as he was furiously – in both senses of the word – deleting spam from his mobile.

The dodgy article in the Telegraph prompted Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Science Minister to came out with this media release:

The apparently false allegation of death threats have diminished the individuals involved and reflect poorly on the scientific community.

Beeby:

False allegation? Who did she speak to? Apparently not the climate scientist who has been advised by state police to install a panic button in his office after receiving death threats. Or to the scientist who had his house vandalised (hence police advice to install video surveillance), or the researcher who received an email, with a marksman’s target superimposed on his photo. Sorry Sophie, none of this behaviour is acceptable.

The unpleasant reality is several universities across Australia have been forced to upgrade security to protect scientists. This has ranged from deleting phone numbers from websites and removing names from faculty notice boards, to installing multiple card-swipe entries, office doors protected by punch-in codes, and moving researchers to areas with secure lifts.

I think that the Shadow Minister for Science could benefit from actually talking to scientists — readers can contact her here.

81
….A f-cking piece of garbage like you deserves nothing but abuse. The catastrophe to come is on the heads of scum like you.

83 …

87 …

Bolt knows full well that nothing in my post incited or encouraged abuse or threats. And that the comments were not threats, but abuse. And that they were not just abuse but part of an exchange with another poster who insisted that the scientists were obviously wrong about the Great Barrier Reef because he’d been there and it was doing fine. This is nothing at all like a climate scientist getting threated or abused for doing his job.

But perhaps, Tim, you and your mates in the Piers Boltbrechtson Hivemind, rather than characterising this rhetorical violence as no big deal, could actually try and calm the nutters down a bit.
Tell them to stop being such nutters.
Because sometimes the nutters get off the leash. Then all of a sudden you got barking maddies everywhere, up in people’s faces, snarling and roaring and throwing off phlegm storms of dudgeon that piles up so high you could climb it to look down on the ash clouds that grounded all the flights into Melbourne this week. And sometimes genuine nutters, they take things a bit too far, don’t they? The extreme left in the 1970s? The Red Brigades? The Baader Meinhoff Group? They didn’t start out as violent crazies. They got there step by step, encouraged by rhetoric that grew increasingly radical and violent the further the emergent terrorists got from their origins in the lentil-loving New Left of the 1960s.

Are we all up to speed on this now? The Earth’s climate has not remained static for “millions” of years. Rather, it has fluctuated back and forth between hot and cold many times, all due to “natural” causes.

“Education is a journey we must take one step at a time. The only alternative is to suffocate in a lifetime of ignorance.”

1. Where’s the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it’s true, it’ll be shocking! But where’s the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it’s very possible the threats are false!
3. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you’re also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
4. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We’re talking about ice ages here man!

It’s all very well GSW talking about these so-called “Ice Ages”, but citing a Wikipedia article as evidence? Really! We all know Wikipedia articles can be unreliable, so why should we believe that one?

“Denier”? That’s a bit offensive isn’t it? I’m just skeptical – I take seriously the motto of the Royal Society: “Nullius in Verba” – “take nobodies word for it”.

I’m just saying that if you expect people here to believe in these “ice ages” you’re talking about, you’ll have to do a better job of explaining how we know about them than with a link to some random Wikipedia article.

Little troll, the whole point of the last several scores of posts has been that which you are slowly working toward yourself. I say slowly, because you haven’t even reached the first corner yet, and I suspect that you won’t reach the finish line under your own steam.

There’s no point trying to explain it to you though, because your Schrödinger state of cognitive dissonance would immediately collapse back into outright denialism, and return you right back to the starting line.

I will however attempt to challenge you with a phrase, and see if you can come up with any inferences that arise from it… What do you think that argumentum ad historiam might mean?

1. Where’s the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it’s true, it’ll be shocking! But where’s the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it’s very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you’re also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We’re talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I’m adult! You’re kids! I’m adult! You’re kids! I’m adult! You’re kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I’m so mature, you’re so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!

This idea of ‘ice ages’ doesn’t pass the back yard test. Like this theory, (fancy word for ‘guess’), has it that there used to be hundreds of feet of ice where my backyard is but it’s 90 degrees today, the grass is a kind of scorched brown and I couldn’t keep the thing wet for 10 minutes let alone frozen. #FAIL. Oh, but there’s this wikipedia article right after the one about porcine aviators in WWII…

It’s becoming increasingly clear that GSW, after having his arse handed to him and his nose rubbed in it repeatedly, is not just in denial and a victim of degenerative narcissistic psychopathy, but must be suffering from anosognosia.

Have pity on the poor schmuck. It’s not nice to make fun of the neurologically impaired.

1. Where’s the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it’s true, it’ll be shocking! But where’s the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it’s very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you’re also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We’re talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I’m adult! You’re kids! I’m adult! You’re kids! I’m adult! You’re kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I’m so mature, you’re so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?

However, in this case, since GSW is congenitally unable to remark against fellow deniers of AGW, counting paedophilia and murderous tendencies as a mere bagatelle compared to their stance against with him against AGW, it’s not only nice, but right.

GSW still has to stand with the paedos and murderers. After all, any EVIDENCE of their actions is purely opinion and he can ignore all that.

1. Where’s the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it’s true, it’ll be shocking! But where’s the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it’s very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you’re also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We’re talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I’m adult! You’re kids! I’m adult! You’re kids! I’m adult! You’re kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I’m so mature, you’re so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?

No one asked me, I know, but for what it’s worth, this is how I see things.

Ol’ fukushima frank has made a demented nutso spectacle of himself. The playful smile that once graced Wow’s delicate features has died and has been replaced with a frown and a pout. Bernard J, who for a spell there was using regular-guy terms like “bullshit” and “thang”, has had a relapse is now back with his privileged-white-dork umlaut-comments. And the “me-too” guys with the walk-on parts are also getting pretty rowdy. I mean, when the only Deltoid keeping his head is rhwombat, you just know there’s trouble.

So, again, as I see it, GSW, what we have forming up here is a sort of geeks-gone-wild “Lord of the Flies” deal. And guess what, GSW? You’re Piggy. So you might want to make a dash for it RIGHT NOW! And hope to hell you can out-run the howling pack.

You warmists are being intolerant by insisting that we oppose threats to kill and rape climate folks and their families! We will not be intimidated by this unruly warmist mob, and we will continue to support those who threaten to rape kids!

>Have to admit, that did actually make me laugh (for the right reasons)!

>Would it be impolite to add Donald Duck too.

>Posted by: GSW | June 21, 2011 12:42

Would ‘for the right reasons’ include the fact that you appear to be too stupid to understand just how stupid you really are, even after some have shown the kindness to explain it to you with simple words?

Irony isn’t all that difficult. You see, the literal meaning of what some people may say is opposite or tangential to what they really mean.

It may be hard to admit one has been the butt of a joke, but acting as if one hasn’t been just makes the hilarity all the greater.

Can we assume then, mike, that you are also sufficiently dense not to understand what is going on?

It’s not like it hasn’t been flatly pointed out to you several times. Precisely what part of the paleoclimate record is ideologically acceptable to you, GSW? How was it constructed, and by whom?

‘Genuinely, Strikingly Witless’ is right! Not only does your response to the subject of this post cast you as a poor excuse for a human being, you’ve gone on to make yourself ridiculous! And you still don’t get it…

Into the fifth dimension (5D) with the deniers; Denial, Dimness, Dishonesty, Diversion and, finally, Derangement. And when the deranged arm, all fired-up by the dishonest elite, starts threatening real people who dare to point out truths the rabble won’t accept, all the little dim-bulb camp-followers just can’t quite really bring themselves to condemn it!

GWS is a Turing troll, attempting to emulate the appearance of an actual real, informed person, and trying to engage rational folk to debate it.

Read his material carefully. He’s posted no science at all, and nothing else that is more that the standard or a poor national Enquirer piece of fluff. He reflects and/or projects what other people say to him, because he is capable of no intellectual construction of his own. It’s also likely that his voice hasn’t broken yet…

He requires no further attention, or only a cursory “you’re wrong, idiot” at most.

I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most “threatening” referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person âmade a death threatâ (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test – not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the âDeliberationâ (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.